ross_warner2

<p>Without reading all posts, I suggest you put all your documentation together and talk to an attorney.</p>

<p>Remember, No good deed goes unpunished!</p>

Check this www.visibledust.com and clean it yourself.

Can't beat plain's sunsets. Check the sandhills of Nebraska. Black Hills (see Rochford) and Badlands of South Dakota, Bandlands and pothole region (ducks and geese) of North Dakota. The small and abandoned communities provide photo ops.

Arash, your english is better than most that live in North Dakota, no appology necessary.

 

I feel originality is how you photograph a subject. However, originality can also affect the aesthetic rating. For example, lighting direction or intensity can be different "than expected" affecting the originality, however, it could in that case also affect the aesthetic of a photo. It is possible that raters and commenters confuse originality with aesthetic. I think I would do that with your piano keys. I take the angle of the keys as aesthetic rather than originality.

 

In your other examples, I would see little original in the building example but I do see originality with the photo angle the apples. The lighitng on the apples I think affects my concept of aesthetics rather than originality.

 

Now I have confused myself over the merits of the concepts of originality and aesthetics. This better not hurt.

It is certianly difficult to put a new system in place and not financially worth while. There However could be some direction as to what the seven rating numbers mean about originality. 1-is the photo of the cat, graduate, bride, or the family with the standard stance, expression, lighting or mood. In otherwords there would be no "bad" rating for originality. The photo could be aesthetically excellent (not likely), average (possible), or bad (out of focus or blurred).

at least giving a objective starting point may help.

 

Carl, the aesthetic rating of my photos at least gives me some measure in relation to my rating of my photo. From what I see slight adjustments can substantially increase or decrease the aesthetics ratings of a photo. Let's face it we all need some love. I really don't care if my photo of a horse is original but I do care if it is aesthetically appreciated.

I am fairly new to photo.net and am having a mental block

understanding the originality rating. It seems a photo is either not

original (a typical stand up straight and smile at the camera photo)

which would rate a 4 (average), or it would differ in some manner

that adds originality making it deserving a rating of 5, 6 or 7. My

question is how can a photo's originality be less than "not original"

(a 4 rating)? It seems a originality rating of 1, 2 or 3 makes no

sense unless one rates the stand up straight and smile photo is a 1

(very bad). What is very bad originality, something that is not

original? Insight into equitably rating originality is appreciated.

Stu, take a look at a Bogen. Many tripod and head combinations for under $200.